Legal Library

Legal Alerts/Articles

Justices Just Say “No” to Review of Removal of Filter Suits

February 7, 2018

On
Monday, November 27, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from a
medical device maker.

The appeal sought to remove eight consolidated suits
involving more than 100 consumers allegedly harmed by the company’s vascular
filters from California state court to federal court. The Supreme Court’s
decision leaves intact the 9th Circuit’s ruling that the cases against Cordis
Corp. do not qualify as a mass action that can be removed to federal court in
accordance with the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). This was an upholding of
a lower court’s decision that the suits could not be removed to federal court
under CAFA’s mass action provision because the plaintiffs did not propose a
joint trial of the claims. A three-person panel also said, “The statement
negates any notion that the plaintiffs were speaking of a bellwether trial
whose results would have preclusive effects in the other cases.” This decision
allows each of the vascular filter cases to be decided on its own merits.

While Cordis says that the company continues to stand
by the quality of its IVC filters and will defend itself vigorously in court,
the plaintiffs who filed the eight suits are seeking damages for injuries
allegedly caused by Cordis’ inferior vena cava filters (IVC filters).

What
is an IVC Filter?

Implantable IVC filters are small medical devices put
into the main vein that returns blood from the lower body to the heart and
lungs. This device is designed to catch blood clots that form in the legs
before they reach the heart and lungs, preventing blockages of these vital
organs. The danger with IVC filters is that they can break apart, allowing
pieces from the medical device to puncture a patient’s internal organs or
become embedded, requiring surgical intervention.

What
does the government say about IVC filters?

In 2010, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
warned doctors of IVC filter design problems that caused them to move around in
the body and break apart, causing perforation of vital organs, and even death.
The FDA reissued this warning again in 2014, but some manufacturers continued to
sell their IVC filters allegedly knowing of the design flaws and the dangers
that came with it.

Manufacturer
Responsibility

When manufacturers know that a product of theirs is
defective and dangerous and is currently in the bodies of Americans across the
country, it is the manufacturers’ responsibility to warn the public as soon as
possible.

Waters
Kraus & Paul is Here to Help

If you or a loved one have been injured as a
result of an IVC filter, you deserve justice. The IVC filter attorneys at
Waters Kraus & Paul, a law firm with experience in litigating medical
device cases, will fight to ensure that you receive the justice you deserve.
One of the best ways to encourage manufacturers to improve the safety of their
products, like IVC filters, is for law firms like Waters Kraus & Paul to
hold manufacturers accountable in the courts for their faulty products and for
failing to warn consumers of the deadly danger. Contact our inferior vena cava
law firm by email or call us at 800.226.9880 to learn how we can assist you
with an IVC filter lawsuit.

The views expressed in this document are solely the views of the author and not Martindale-Hubbell. This document is intended for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance.

CONSUMER WEBSITES

The information provided on this site is not legal advice, does not constitute a lawyer referral service, and no attorney-client or confidential relationship is or should be formed by the use of this site. The attorney listings on the site are paid attorney advertisements. Your access of/to and use of this site is subject to additional Supplemental Terms.